Effect of Pod Sealant Application on the Quantitative and Qualitative Traits of Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Seed Yield - MDPI
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
agriculture
Article
Effect of Pod Sealant Application on the Quantitative and
Qualitative Traits of Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Seed Yield
Magdalena Serafin-Andrzejewska * , Marcin Kozak and Andrzej Kotecki
Institute of Agroecology and Plant Production, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences,
Grunwaldzki Sq. 24 A, 50-363 Wrocław, Poland; marcin.kozak@upwr.edu.pl (M.K.);
andrzej.kotecki@upwr.edu.pl (A.K.)
* Correspondence: magdalena.serafin-andrzejewska@upwr.edu.pl
Abstract: Field pea is used for human consumption or as livestock feed. The yield of pea seeds can
be significantly decreased due to the genetically determined tendency of peas to pod shattering. This
study aimed to evaluate the effect of pod sealant application on the quantitative and qualitative traits
of the seed yield of two pea cultivars: Arwena and Tarchalska grown in south-western Poland in
the years 2018–2019. Pod sealant application showed higher values of analysed quantitative and
qualitative traits: number of pods per plant, number of seeds per plant, seed weight per pod, 1000-
seed weight, seed yield, dry matter of seeds, protein content in seeds, and total protein productivity,
except the number of seeds per pod. For both years (2018–2019), the interaction of cultivar and pod
sealant application showed a significant effect on the number of seeds per plant, total protein content,
total protein productivity, and seed weight per pod in 2019. Therefore, the pod sealant application
Citation: Serafin-Andrzejewska, M.; can be a relatively simple way to improve the yielding of field peas.
Kozak, M.; Kotecki, A. Effect of Pod
Sealant Application on the Keywords: Pisum sativum; pod sealant; pod shattering; yield; protein content
Quantitative and Qualitative Traits of
Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Seed
Yield. Agriculture 2021, 11, 645.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ 1. Introduction
agriculture11070645
In Poland, where due to the weather conditions soybean cultivation is limited, pea is
a related species of great importance. The field pea can be grown both for food and feed. It
Academic Editors: Jose
is an inexpensive, easily available source of protein (24.2–27.5%), complex carbohydrates,
C. Jimenez-Lopez and
vitamins, and minerals [1]. Due to its varied use and high yielding potential, pea is
Alfonso Clemente
considered as one of the most important legumes grown in Poland. Pea belongs to pulses,
crops harvested solely for dry grain. The FAO list covers eleven primary pulses [2]. In
Received: 8 June 2021
Accepted: 8 July 2021
2019, the average global yield of dry pea seeds was 1.98 t ha−1 . The most important
Published: 9 July 2021
producers were Canada, the Russian Federation, and China. In 2019 in the European
Union, the average yield was 2.63 tonnes per hectare, and Poland reached 1.7 t ha−1 of dry
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
pea seeds [3]. In 2020 in Poland, the pea standard yields in the Research Centre for Cultivar
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Testing (COBORU) experiments amounted to 4.3 t ha−1 [4].
published maps and institutional affil- There are many reasons for lower pea seed yields in field production, mostly an
iations. inadequate plant density per 1 m2 and a delayed sowing date. This neglect of cultivation
cannot be compensated for by any agronomic practice. In addition to improper cultivation,
the genetically determined tendency of peas to pod shattering causes significant yield losses.
In legumes, pod shattering is the opening of the mature pod along the dorsal or ventral
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
sutures and accompanied by the shedding of the seeds after the plant reaches maturity [5].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Pod shattering resistance will be vital for breeding crops that are suited to the increasingly
This article is an open access article
arid conditions expected in the coming decades [6]. Losses from shattering may be reduced
distributed under the terms and by harvesting field peas before all pods are dry. Peas do not mature as evenly as other
conditions of the Creative Commons plants, so harvesting may be necessary while the leaves and pods are still green. This
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// can be problematic due to the large amount of moist biomass. Another solution is plant
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ desiccation to ensure even drying, when the seed moisture reaches 25 to 30% [7]. In Polish
4.0/). climatic conditions, due to high water requirements and resistance to low temperatures,
Agriculture 2021, 11, 645. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070645 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture
Agriculture 2021, 11, 645 2 of 9
peas are sown early (third week of March). Seed germination begins at 2–3 ◦ C, and in
early growing stages seedlings tolerate frosts up to −5 ◦ C. Pea is characterised by a short
growing season, ca. 90–115 days [8]. High temperatures occurring in July, when the
pods are ripe and dry, may cause their shattering. Research by Romkaew et al. (2007) [9]
showed that low humidity during harvesting decreased the pod moisture content and
resulted in higher shattering. Susceptibility to pod shattering is one of the major traits
resulting in yield losses in many seed crops, especially in soybean, pulses, and Brassica
species [10–14]. Pod shattering can be prevented by including the use of a pod sealant
in cultivation technology. Preparations preventing pod shattering work on the basis of
various active substances: synthetic latex (carboxylated styrene-butadiene copolymer),
ethoxylated alcohol, natural terpene and pine resins, polymer resins, or acacia gum. There
are also preparations containing several of the above substances for a comprehensive
action [15,16]. According to the producers, the effectiveness of these preparations is based
on a similar effect: by creating a kind of semi-permeable membrane on the plant surface,
these preparations limit the ingress of water into the pods or siliques, and at the same
time allow for the leakage of water to the outside. Thus, it prevents pods or siliques from
shattering and shedding seeds, which allows for their further growth and development in
the last days of the growing season.
The main objectives of this study were to investigate the effects of pod sealant use on
pea seed yield, seed moisture, and total protein content. The hypothesis being tested is that
the pod sealant application reduces pea seed loss before harvesting and improves seed
yield and its quality.
The study of pod sealant effectiveness in pea cultivation can be important for practical
applications. The results of this research can be practically applied to consider pod sealant
use in pea, but also in the cultivation of other pulses. In the case of pulses, it is important
to counteract yield losses and support the increase in the total protein content in seeds.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Field Experiment, Soil, and Weather Conditions
In the years 2018 and 2019, a field experiment was conducted on the experimental
fields of the Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences in Poland (51◦ 100 N,
17◦ 060 E) to evaluate the effect of an emulsion containing carboxylated styrene-butadiene
copolymer application on the shattering resistance of field pea pods.
Both cultivars used in the field experiment were recommended in years of research
for cultivation in Lower Silesia Voivodeship (Poland), where the experiment was located.
Tarchalska and Arwena are Polish cultivars with white flowers, afila type (semi leafless), for
general use. Tarchalska is a traditional, high yielding cultivar recommended for cultivation
practically all over Poland. Arwena is a new cultivar, registered in 2015. Arwena is a
promising cultivar, high and stable yielding, characterised by the lowest content of trypsin
inhibitors among Polish cultivars of peas [17,18].
The field experiment had a split-plot design. Pea cultivars (Arwena and Tarchalska)
were allocated in the main plots and pod sealant application (1.0 L ha−1 at BBCH 79
phase and the control plot of 0 L ha−1 ) was placed in the subplots. Four randomized
repetitions were carried out in the experiment, and the area of a single subplot was
15 m2 (10 m × 1.5 m). The field experiment was set up on Cutanic Stagnic Luvisol—
developed from light loam underlain by medium loam, suitable for wheat production
[19,20]. The following chemical characteristics were determined in the soil samples: soil
pH—in 1 mol dm−3 , KCl—potentiometrically, the contents of available P and K were
determined according to the Egner–Riehm method, and Mg—Schachtschabel method. The
soil properties are presented in Table 1 and are as follows: the pH of the soil was slightly
acidic in 2018 and acidic in 2019. The soil was characterised by medium P2 O5 content in
2018 and low in 2019, medium (2018) or high (2019) K2 O content, medium (2018) or very
high (2019) Mg content [21].Agriculture 2021, 11, 645 3 of 9
Table 1. Soil properties in years of research (pH and content of macronutrients).
Macronutrient Concentration
Year pH (mg 100g−1 )
P2 O5 K2 O Mg
2018 6.1 11.8 18.8 6.6
2019 5.5 9.2 21.5 9.4
Before the establishment of the experiment, mineral fertilisation was applied (kg ha−1 ):
60 P2 O5 (46% triple superphosphate) and 120 K2 O (60% sylvinite). Fertilizers were applied
directly before sowing and were mechanically mixed with the soil to a depth of circa 5 cm.
In each year of the field experiment, the preceding crop was winter wheat. Pea was sown
on 20 March 2018 and 19 March 2019, at a row spacing of 15 cm; the number of sown seeds
was 90 per 1 m2 . Each year, directly after sowing, weed infestation was regulated with the
herbicide Boxer 800 EC (4.0 L ha−1 , active substance: 800 g L−1 prosulfocarb; Syngenta,
Warsaw, Poland), monocotyledonous weeds were controlled with the herbicide Fusilade
Forte 150 EC (1.5 L ha−1 , active substance: 150 g L−1 fluazifop-P-butyl; Syngenta Poland),
and secondary weed infestation was limited by the herbicide Corum (1.25 L ha−1 , active
substance: 480 g L−1 bentazone and 22.4 g L−1 imazamox; BASF) with the addition of Dash
HC adjuvant (0.6 L ha−1 ; BASF). The harvest was carried out on 12 July 2018 and 19 July
2019. Weather conditions in the years of research are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Weather conditions in the years of field experiment.
Temperature (◦ C) Precipitation (mm)
Month
2018 2019 Average 1986–2015 2018 2019 Average 1986–2015
III 1.3 6.8 3.8 27.6 22.5 38.2
IV 13.7 10.8 8.9 19.0 24.2 33.6
V 17.1 12.1 14.4 54.3 76.8 54.1
VI 18.8 22.1 17.3 36.6 27.0 67.4
VII 20.1 19.3 19.6 79.1 50.1 78.9
Average temperature
and total precipitation 14.2 14.2 12.8 216.6 200.6 272.2
of vegetation period
2.2. Data Collection
Directly before the harvest (BBCH 86–87) on a sample of 10 plants from the central
part of each subplot, the components of yield were determined: the number of pods per
plant (NP, pcs), the number of seeds per plant (SNPL, pcs), the number of seeds per pod
(SNP, pcs), and the weight of seeds per pod (SWP, g). After harvest, 1000-seed weight (TSW,
g) from each subplot according to the International Rules for Seed Testing [22], and the
seed yields (SY, Mg ha−1 ) were determined. Seed yields from subplots into seed yields per
hectare were converted with 15% moisture.
Qualitative evaluation of pea seeds was based on the results of chemical analyses,
which was carried out in agreement with the methodology of food product analysis. Dry
matter was established with the gravimetric method at a temperature of 105 ± 2 ◦ C for
5 h, and total protein content (PC, g kg−1 DM) was established with a modified Kjeldahl
method (total nitrogen was established in the seeds and then converted into total protein
using the coefficient of 6.25).
On the basis of the results of chemical analyses (dry matter and total protein content)
and the obtained seed yield, total protein productivity (TPP, Mg ha−1 ) was calculated in
seed dry matter from an area of 1 ha.Agriculture 2021, 11, 645 4 of 9
2.3. Statistical Analyses
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done at the significance level p < 0.05 (F-test)
using the program Statistica 13.1 (StatSoft, Kraków, Poland). The experiment included
three factors: two years, two cultivars, two applications (pod sealant and control), and four
randomized replicates arranged in a split-plot design. The p < 0.01 and p < 0.05 significance
levels were used. Homogeneous groups were determined by Tukey’s multiple range test
(at p < 0.05) using consecutive letters starting from “a”—the most beneficial—to “d”—least
beneficial in terms of values of analysed traits.
3. Results
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) has shown that the cultivars significantly differed in
all analysed parameters. Application of pod sealant significantly affected all traits except
SNP (Table 3). A significant effect of the weather conditions during this study on the tested
quantitative and qualitative traits (except SNP) is shown, therefore the results are presented
for each year separately.
Table 3. ANOVA for the effect of year, cultivar, and pod sealant application on the
investigated parameters.
NP SNPL SNP SWP TSW SY PC TPP
Factor
p-Value
Year (Y) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0669 0.0019 0.0161 0.0002 0.0262 0.0005
Cultivar (C) 0.0060 0.0000 0.0034 0.0149 0.0000 0.0000 0.0046 0.0000
Application
0.0000 0.0000 0.1731 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(A)
Y×C 0.7666 0.1952 0.1983 0.6670 0.0639 0.9436 0.0064 0.0384
Y×A 0.1089 0.0184 0.0187 0.0625 0.4934 0.8092 0.3690 0.4828
C×A 0.9289 0.0001 0.0697 0.1682 0.0962 0.8092 0.0000 0.0000
Y×C×A 0.3358 0.9425 0.4828 0.0808 0.2069 0.0344 0.3939 0.0175
NP—number of pods per plant, SNPL—number of seeds per plant, SNP—number of seeds per pod, SWP—seed
weight per pod, TSW—1000-seed weight, SY—seed yield, PC—protein content in seeds, TPP—total protein
productivity.
The PC and TPP were significantly affected by the interaction of year and cultivar. The
interaction of year and application of pod sealant significantly affected only SNPL and SNP.
The effect of interaction of cultivar and application of pod sealant was observed in SNPL,
PC, and TPP. The SY and TPP in different cultivars reacted differently to the application of
pod sealant in years of research (Y × C × A) (Table 3).
Significant differences between cultivars were stated for the analysed parameters,
except SWP in 2018 (Table 4). Averaged across pod sealant application, cultivar Tarchalska
demonstrated the highest values of all investigated traits. Averaged across cultivars, the
application of pod sealant significantly affected all quantitative and qualitative traits in
2018. Tested parameters were increased, except SNP, which was significantly lower when
pod sealant was applied.Agriculture 2021, 11, 645 5 of 9
Table 4. Cultivar and pod sealant application effects on quantitative and qualitative traits in 2018.
Factor NP SNPL SNP SWP TSW SY PC TPP
Cultivar Arwena 3.64 12.5 3.42 1.04 212.5 2.82 277.1 0.73
(C) Tarchalska 3.84 14.2 3.71 1.07 240.7 3.21 291.7 0.88
F test C * ** * ns ** ** * **
Application Control 3.29 12.2 3.71 1.01 224.6 2.88 279.1 0.75
(A) Pod
4.19 14.4 3.42 1.10 228.6 3.14 289.8 0.85
sealant
A ** ** * ** * ** ** **
F test
C×A ns ** ns ns ns ns * *
Mean 3.74 13.3 3.57 1.05 226.6 3.01 284.4 0.80
NP—number of pods per plant, SNPL—number of seeds per plant, SNP—number of seeds per pod, SWP—seed
weight per pod (g), TSW—1000-seed weight (g), SY—seed yield (Mg ha−1 ), PC—protein content in seeds (g
kg−1 DM), TPP—total protein productivity (Mg ha−1 ). ** Significant at p < 0.01; * significant at p < 0.05; ns—not
significant.
The interaction of the tested factors had a significant impact on SNPL, PC, and TPP
(Table 4). In 2018, the Tarchalska cultivar, after the application of the pod sealant, was
characterised by the significantly highest SNPL and the lowest was recorded for Arwena in
the control subplots. However, in the case of both cultivars, a significant increase in SNPL
was stated after the pod sealant application (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Significant effect of C × A interaction on analysed parameters in 2018. PS—pod sealant application. Different
letters indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05 (Tukey’s multiple range test).Agriculture 2021, 11, 645 6 of 9
The PC was significantly higher in the Tarchalska cultivar when pod sealant was
applied (Figure 1).
A significant increase in the TPP was observed in both tested cultivars when pod
sealant was applied. The significantly highest TPP was noted in the Tarchalska after the
pod sealant application (Figure 1).
Significant differences between cultivars were stated for the SNPL, TSW, SY, and TPP
in 2019 (Table 5). Averaged across pod sealant application, the cultivar Tarchalska was
characterised by the highest values of all investigated traits. Averaged across cultivars, the
application of pod sealant significantly affected all quantitative and qualitative traits in
2019, except SNP. Tested parameters increased after pod sealant application.
Table 5. Cultivar and pod sealant application effects on quantitative and qualitative traits in 2019.
Factor NP SNPL SNP SWP TSW SY PC TPP
Cultivar Arwena 4.12 13.9 3.39 1.08 217.8 2.92 289.6 0.79
(C) Tarchalska 4.36 15.3 3.52 1.12 241.6 3.32 290.0 0.90
F test C ns ** ns ns ** ** ns **
Application Control 3.18 13.3 3.41 1.07 227.1 2.99 283.3 0.79
(A) Pod
4.57 15.9 3.50 1.13 232.2 3.25 296.3 0.90
sealant
A ** ** ns ** ** ** ** **
F test
C×A ns * ns * ns ns ** **
Mean 4.24 14.6 3.46 1.10 229.7 3.12 289.8 0.84
NP—number of pods per plant, SNPL—number of seeds per plant, SNP—number of seeds per pod, SWP—seed
weight per pod (g), TSW—1000-seed weight (g), SY—seed yield (Mg ha−1 ), PC—protein content in seeds (g
kg−1 DM), TPP—total protein productivity (Mg ha−1 ). ** Significant at p < 0.01; * significant at p < 0.05; ns—not
significant.
The interaction of C x A had a significant impact on SNPL, SWP, PC, and TPP in 2019
(Table 5).
The pod sealant application caused a significant increase in the SNPL in both cultivars.
The highest SNPL was obtained from the Tarchalska cultivar after pod sealant application,
while the lowest was for control for both tested cultivars (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Significant effect of C × A interaction on analysed parameters in 2019. PS—pod sealant application. Different
letters indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05 (Tukey’s multiple range test).Agriculture 2021, 11, 645 7 of 9
The SWP was the highest in the Tarchalska cultivar, when pod sealant was applied.
Other interactions were not significantly different in this trait (Figure 2).
After pod sealant application, the Tarchalska cultivar was characterised by the highest
value of PC in seeds and at the same time the lowest value of this trait for control subplots
from all investigated interactions. In the case of the Arwena cultivar, the differences were
not significant (Figure 2).
The Tarchalska cultivar had the highest value of TPP after pod sealant application.
The lowest TPP was stated in the Arwena cultivar from the control variant (Figure 2).
In general, for both years, pod sealant application showed higher values of analysed
quantitative and qualitative traits, except SNP. For both years, the interaction of C x A
showed a significant effect on SNPL, PC, TPP, and SWP in 2019.
4. Discussion
In crop plants, fruit shattering resistance is a preferred trait, because shattering fruits,
i.e., pods or siliques, make harvesting difficult and often lead to a decrease in produc-
tion [23,24]. Shattering resistance was likely to be one of the first traits strongly selected
by plant breeders and investigated by plant biologists and physiologists. Therefore, many
articles are available on the genetics and physiology of pod shattering and the breeding
of new resistant varieties of pulses [10,25,26], soybean [5,27–29], and oilseed rape [30–32].
However, not all seed crops have fully shattered resistant fruits. To improve traits such as
disease resistance and stress tolerance, breeders often need to use wild crop material that is
prone to fruit shattering [33,34]. As a consequence, there is often some degree of shattering
in seed material, especially in minor crops.
Legumes are sensitive to changing agroclimatic conditions. Constant cultivar traits
may be modified by unfavourable habitat or weather [35]. This phenomenon as well as
global challenges such as limited resources and climate change are forcing farmers to
adopt innovative agriculture practices in legumes cultivation to protect the seed yield from
losses immediately prior to harvest. There is a limited number of available articles related
to agrotechnical ways to counteract pod shattering, especially strictly related to the pod
sealant effect on the quantity and quality of seed yield of peas.
This study has shown that pod sealant application caused higher values of number
of pods per plant, number of seeds per plant, seed weight per pod, 1000-seed weight,
seed yield, protein content in seeds, and total protein productivity (Table 3). According
to the breeder, the Tarchalska cultivar is characterised by high pod shatter resistance [17].
However, pod sealant application increased the values of the number of seeds per plant in
2018 and 2019 (Figures 1 and 2), and seed weight per pod in 2019 (Figure 2). These results
suggest that pod sealant application is a favourable treatment in pea cultivation, which can
interact with cultivar traits to maximize yield.
Furthermore, an increase in total protein content and total protein productivity was
observed when pod sealant was applied (Figures 1 and 2). This finding shows that pod
sealant application can improve the quality of legumes’ seeds. However, this should be
confirmed by further research.
In 2018, the number of seeds per pod was significantly lower due to the higher number
of no shattered pods on plants, when pod sealant was applied. In 2019, this trait was not
significantly affected by pod sealant application.
The study of Aslan et al. (2018) [36] on the effect of polymer cyclohexane application
on lentil pod shatter has shown that harvested yields were not significantly different when
the polymer was used. Effects of polymer application were significant for pod shatter and
loss percent. Results of our study are inconsistent with these findings. In this study, the
seed yield increased in 2018 by 9.03% and in 2019 by 8.69% under the effect of pod sealant
application (Table 3). However, an effect of pod sealant application on the increase in the
number of pods per plant was observed, which is consistent with the above-mentioned
results [36].Agriculture 2021, 11, 645 8 of 9
The effect of pod sealant use in oilseed spring rape cultivation was also investigated by
Malarz (2008) [37] in agroecological conditions of south-west Poland. A significant increase
in the weight of seeds in a silique was stated when pod sealant was used. This is in line
with our results. In 2019, pod sealant application significantly affected seed weight per pod
(Figure 2). Research of Steponavičius et al. (2019) [38] on evaluation of the effectiveness of
pod sealants in increasing pod shattering resistance in oilseed rape has shown that using
the experimental sealant, which combines an acrylic sealant with a surfactant trisiloxane,
2 weeks before harvest, reduced the natural loss of seed yield by 20–70%.
These results confirm the validity of the inclusion of pod sealant in the cultivation
technology of crops. Pod sealants can improve seed yield quantity, as well as quality.
5. Conclusions
The pod sealant application is a treatment that can prevent yield losses due to pod
shattering in pea cultivation, but also in other crops. Yield increased mostly by preventing
pod shatter, which increases the number of seeds per plant. Moreover, the total protein
content in the seeds of peas increased after pod sealant application, which is important in
the case of pulses quality.
The application of pod sealant can be a relatively simple way to improve the yielding
of many crops’ species. It can be included in cultivation technology when needed, i.e.,
due to unfavourable weather conditions during the vegetation period. Further research is
needed to revise the effect of pod sealants on quantitative and qualitative traits of pulses
and other crops, not only soybean and oilseed rape.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.K. and M.S.-A.; methodology, M.K. and M.S.-A.; formal
analysis, M.S.-A., M.K. and A.K.; investigation, M.S.-A. and M.K.; writing—original draft preparation,
M.S.-A. and M.K.; writing—review and editing, M.S.-A., M.K. and A.K.; supervision, A.K. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Boye, J.; Zare, F.; Pletch, A. Pulse proteins: Processing, characterization, functional properties and applications in food and feed.
Food Res. Int. 2009, 43, 414–431. [CrossRef]
2. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Definitions and Classification of Commodities: Pulses and Derived Products. 1994.
Available online: http://www.fao.org/es/faodef/fdef04e.htm#4.02 (accessed on 10 February 2021).
3. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 2021. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (accessed on 10
February 2021).
4. Binkowski, M.; Osiecka, A. Wst˛epne Wyniki Plonowania Odmian w Doświadczeniach Porejestrowych. Bobowate Grubonasienne
(Bobik, Groch Siewny, Łubin Waskolistny,
˛ Łubin Żółty) [Preliminary Results of Cultivar Yielding in Post-Registration Experiments.
Legumes (Field Bean, Field Pea, Narrow Leaved Lupin, Yellow Lupin)]. COBORU Słupia Wielka, COBO 52/2020. 2020, n.350: 4.
Available online: https://coboru.gov.pl/Publikacje_COBORU/Wstepne_wyniki_PDO/WWPO_Bobowate_2020.pdf (accessed
on 5 March 2021). (In Polish)
5. Bara, N.; Khare, D.; Srivastava, A.N. Studies on the factors affecting pod shattering in soybean. Indian J. Genet. Plant Breed. 2013,
73, 270–277. [CrossRef]
6. Parker, T.A.; Lo, S.; Gepts, P. Pod shattering in grain legumes: Emerging genetic and environment-related patterns. Plant Cell
2021, 33, 179–199. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Endres, G.; Forster, S.; Kandel, H.; Pasche, J.; Wunsch, M.; Knodel, J.; Hellevang, K. Field Pea Production. NDSU Extension
Service. 2016. Available online: https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/crops/field-pea-production/a1166.pdf (accessed on
3 March 2021).
8. Helios, W.; Kotecki, A. Effect of the nitrogen fertilization and harvest date on the seed sowing value in pea. Electron. J. Pol. Agric.
Univ. 2005, 8, 11. Available online: http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume8/issue4/art-11.html (accessed on 3 March 2021).
9. Romkaew, J.; Umezaki, T.; Suzuki, K.; Nagaya, Y. Pod dehiscence in relation to pod position and moisture content in soybean.
Plant Prod. Sci. 2007, 10, 292–296. [CrossRef]Agriculture 2021, 11, 645 9 of 9
10. Abd El-Moneim, A.M. Selection for non-shattering common vetch, Vicia sativa L. Plant Breed. 1993, 110, 168–171. [CrossRef]
11. Weeden, N.F.; Brauner, S.; Przyborowski, J.A. Genetic analysis of pod dehiscence in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Cell Mol. Biol. Lett.
2002, 7, 657–663. [PubMed]
12. Child, R.D.; Summers, J.E.; Babij, J.; Farrent, J.W.; Bruce, D.M. Increased resistance to pod shatter is associated with changes in the
vascular structure in pods of resynthesized Brassica napus line. J. Exp. Bot. 2003, 54, 1919–1930. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Romkaew, J.; Nagaya, Y.; Goto, M.; Suzuki, K.; Umezaki, T. Pod dehiscence in relation to chemical components of pod shell in
soybean. Plant Prod. Sci. 2008, 11, 278–282. [CrossRef]
14. Liu, X.; Tu, B.; Zhang, Q.; Herbert, S.J. Physiological and molecular aspects of pod shattering resistance in crops. Czech J. Genet.
Plant Breed. 2019, 55, 87–92. [CrossRef]
15. Bohus, P.; Di Modugno, R.; Chiavacci, D.; Floridi, G.; Li Bassi, G. Pod Sealing Method. International Patent WO 2011/147721 A1,
11 December 2011.
16. Holzapfel, C.; Vera, C.; Phelps, S.; Nybo, B. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Pod-Sealants for Reducing Shattering Losses in Several
Cultivars of Direct-Combined Canola; Final Project Report; Saskatchewan Canola Development Commission: Saskatoon, SK,
Canada, 2010.
17. DANKO 2021a. Available online: http://danko.pl/odmiany/tarchalska/?lang=en (accessed on 2 July 2021).
18. DANKO 2021b. Available online: http://danko.pl/odmiany/arwena/?lang=en (accessed on 2 July 2021).
19. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, update 2015 International Soil Classification system for
naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resour. Rep. 2014, 106, 192.
20. Kabała, C.; Charzyński, P.; Chodorowski, J.; Drewnik, M.; Glina, B.; Greinert, A.; Hulisz, P.; Jankowski, M.; Jonczak, J.; Łabaz,
B.; et al. Polish Soil Classification, 6th edition—principles, classification scheme and correlations. Soil Sci. Ann. 2019, 70, 71–97.
[CrossRef]
21. IUNG 2021. Available online: http://www.iung.pl/images/GLACH-do-pobrania/OCENA-STOPNIA-ZASOBNOSCI-GLEBY-
W-SKLADNIKI-POKARMOWE.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2021). (In Polish).
22. International Seed Testing Association (ISTA). International Rules for Seed Testing. 2020. Available online: https://www.seedtest.
org/en/international-rules-for-seed-testing-_content---1--1083.html (accessed on 11 July 2020).
23. Abbo, S.; Van-Oss, R.P.; Gopher, A.; Saranga, Y.; Ofner, I.; Peleg, Z. Plant domestication versus crop evolution. A conceptual
framework for cereals and grain legumes. Trends Plant Sci. 2014, 19, 351–360. [CrossRef]
24. Abbo, S.; Saranga, Y.; Peleg, Z.; Kerem, Z.; Lev-Yadun, S.; Gopher, A. Reconsidering domestication of legumes versus cereals in
the ancient Near East. Q. Rev. Biol. 2009, 84, 29–50. [CrossRef]
25. Weeden, N.F. Genetic Changes Accompanying the Domestication of Pisum sativum: Is there a Common Genetic Basis to the
‘Domestication Syndrome’ for Legumes? Ann. Bot. 2007, 100, 1017–1025. [CrossRef]
26. Dong, R.; Dong, D.; Luo, D.; Zhou, Q.; Chai, X.; Zhang, J.; Xie, W.; Liu, W.; Dong, Y.; Wang, Y.; et al. Transcriptome analyses reveal
candidate pod shattering-associated genes involved in the pod ventral sutures of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.). Front. Plant Sci.
2017, 8, 649. [CrossRef]
27. Bhor, T.J.; Chimote, V.P.; Deshmukh, M.P. Inheritance of pod shattering in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill]. Electron. J. Plant
Breed. 2014, 5, 671–676.
28. Gaikwad, A.P.; Bharud, R.W. Effect of harvesting stages and biochemical factors on pod shattering in soybean, Glycine max (L.)
Merrill. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 1015–1026. [CrossRef]
29. Krisnawati, A.; Soegianto, A.; Waluyo, B.; Kuswanto. The pod shattering resistance of soybean lines based on the shattering
incidence and severity. Czech J. Genet. Plant Breed. 2020, 56, 111–122. [CrossRef]
30. Kadkol, G.P.; Macmillan, R.H.; Burrow, R.P.; Halloran, G.M. Evaluation of Brassica genotypes for resistance to shatter. I.
Development of a laboratory test. Euphytica 1984, 33, 63–73. [CrossRef]
31. Wang, R.; Ripley, V.L.; Rakow, G. Pod shatter resistance evaluation in cultivars and breeding lines of Brassica napus, B. juncea and
Sinapis alba. Plant Breed. 2007, 126, 588–595. [CrossRef]
32. Hossain, S.; Kadkol, G.P.; Raman, R.; Salisbury, P.A.; Raman, H. Breeding Brassica napus for shatter resistance. In Plant Breeding;
Abdurakhmonov, I., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; Chapter 14; pp. 313–332.
33. Hajjar, R.; Hodgkin, T. The use of wild relatives in crop improvement: A survey of developments over the last 20 years. Euphytica
2007, 156, 1–13. [CrossRef]
34. Warschefsky, E.; Varma Penmetsa, R.; Cook, D.R.; Von Wettberg, E.J.B. Back to the wilds: Tapping evolutionary adaptations for
resilient crops through systematic hybridization with crop wild relatives. Am. J. Bot. 2014, 101, 1791–1800. [CrossRef]
35. Brouwer, W. Die Erbse (Pisum sativum L.) In Handbuch des Speziellen Pflanzenbaues; Paul Parey: Berlin & Hamburg, Germany, 1976;
Volume 2, pp. 496–716.
36. Aslan, H.; Gayberi, M.; Kahraman, A. Effects of polymer cyclohexane application on lentil pod shatter in semi-arid region of
Turkey. Res. Agr. Eng. 2018, 64, 136–142. [CrossRef]
37. Malarz, W. Wpływ wybranych czynników agrotechnicznych na rozwój i cechy jakościowe plonu odmian rzepaku jarego (The
effects of some agrotechnical factors on the development and yield quality of spring rape cultivars). Zesz. Nauk. UPWr Rolnictwo.
2008, 562, 7–83.
38. Steponavičius, D.; Kemzūraitė, A.; Bauša, L.; Zaleckas, E. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Pod Sealants in Increasing Pod
Shattering Resistance in Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus L.). Energies 2019, 12, 2256. [CrossRef]You can also read
